Routledge v Grant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1828 |
| Date | 13 May 1828 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 920
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 1 Moo. & P. 717; 6 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 166: at Nisi Prius, 3 Car. & P. 267. Distinguished, Dickinson v. Dodds, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 469. Referred to, Byrne v. Van Tienhoven, 1880, 5 C. P. D. 347; Stevenson v. M'Lean, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 351; Reichel v. Bishop of Oxford, 1887-89, 35 Ch. D. 68; 14 App. Cas. 259; Bristol Cardiff and Swansea Aerated Bread Company v. Maggs, 1890, 44 Ch. D. 625.
[653] eoutledge v. grant. May 13, 1828. [S. C. 1 Moo. & P. 717; 6 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 166 : ;it Nisi Prius, 3 Car. & P. 267. Distinguished, Dickinson v. Dodds, 1876, 2 Ch. D. 469. Referred to, Byrne v. Fan Tienhown. 1880, 5. C. P. D. 347; Stevenson v. M'Lean, 1880, 5 Q. B. D. 351; Reifhel v. Bishop of Oxford, 1887-89, 35 Ch. D. 68; 14 App. Cas. 259; Bristol, Cardiff and Swknsea Aerated Bread Company v. Maggs, 1890, 44 Ch. D. 625.] 1. Defendant baying offered to purchase a house, and to give Plaintiff six weeks for a definitive answer, Held, that before the offer was accepted, the Defendant might retract it afc any time during the six weeks.-2. Averment, that Plaintiff was entitled to a term of thirty-two years in the premises, under a contract with A. and that Plaintiff having agreed to take the premises, Defendant was ready to grant him a lese of thirty-one years :-Plaintiff having only twelve years' term in the premises, and shewing no written contract with H. for a terra of thirty-two years, Held, a material variance.-3. Defendant offered to purchase a house upon certain terms, 4BHf8.6H. ROUTLEDGE V. GRANT 921 "possession to be given on or before 25th July;" Plaintiff agreed to the terms, and said he would give possession on the lat of August, Held, no acceptance of Defendant's offer. Assumpiit; The declaration stated (first count) that the Plaintiff was possessed of a term in a dwelling-house, to expire 25th December 1856 ; and that Defendant agreed, on, the 29th April 1825, upon receiving a lease for twenty-one years, at 2501. a year rent, with the option of having the time extended to thirty-one years, on giving aix months' notice, and, upon having possession on the 25th July then uext, to pay Plaintiff 27501., and take the fixtures at a valuation. Averment of Plaintiff's readiness to grant the lease. Breach ; refusal to accept it, and to take the fixtures at a valuation ; and non-payment of the 27501. The second count alleged the Plaintiff to be entitled to a certain term, to wit, a term, of thirty-two years, in the dwelling-house, under a certain contract between the Plaintiff and Anthony Hermon, who was authorized in that behalf; and then stated tha agreement with the Defendant, and the breach, as before. The third count alleged Plaintiff to be possessed for the residue of a certain term, to expire 25th December 1856 ; and the agreement, tender of lease to Defendant, and breach, as before. At tht trial before Best G. J., London sittings after Michaelmas term, it appeared, that on the 18th March [654] 1825, the Plaintiff received a note from the Defendant touching the premises, in these terms :- " Mr, Grant's proposal. "To pay a premium of 27501., upon receiving a lease for twenty-one years, with the option (upon giving six mouths' previous notice to the landlord or his agent) of having the time extended to thirty-one years, paying the same yearly rent as before, for such extended term of ten years beyond twenty-one years. "Rent, 2501. " Mr. Grant to pay for the fixtures at a valuation, possession to be given on or before 25th July next, to which time all taxes and outgoings are to be discharged by Mr. Routledge; and a definitive answer to be given within six weeks from the 18bh March 1825." The Plaintiff, who at this time had only a term of twelve years in the premises, had to apply bo his landlord for a new lease, before he was in a condition to accept the Defendant's offer. The Plaintiff having come to an understanding with his landlord, wrote the following note to the Defendant;- "Mr. Boutledge begs to say that he accepts Mr. Grant's offer for his house, Not 69 St. James's Street, and that he will give Mr. Grant possession on the 1st of August next. "St. James's Street, 6th April 1825. " Mr. R. will esteem it a particular favour if Mr. Grant will not, for the present, name the subject to any one." The Defendant returned the following answer :- "7th April 1825. " Sir,-I received your note last night, and hasten to acquaint you, that having considered as confidential [655] the negotiation respecting your house, I had mentioned it to no one; but, upon consulting with a friend this morning, in whose opinion I have more confidence than my own, I am advised, for some reasons which had not occurred to myself, not to think of taking a house in St. James's Street for a dwelling-house. May I therefore request you to permit me to withdraw the proposal I made to you about it? I am in hopes you will make no hesitation to do this, when you consider the spirit of candour and openness in which it was made to you. But should it be otherwise, as I am the last that would willingly aot with inconsistency, I will willingly refer the question to friends for decision, and abide by their opinion of the case.- I have tha honour to be, &c. " alex. grant. " Mr. Thomas Routledge." 922 ROUTLEDQE r. GRANT 4 BINO. 65. To this the Plaintiff replied aa follows :- "8th April 1825. "Sir,-In answer to your letter of yesterday, I beg to state, that, relying upon your performing the agreement for the purchase of my house in St. James's Street, I have taken another house, and made arrangements which I cannot without great loss relinquish. I hope, therefore, that you will not wish me to withdraw it.-I am, &c. "THOS. ROUTLEDGE. " Alexander Grant, Esquire." The Defendant rejoined,- "9th April 1825. "Sir,-Your note of yesterday surprised me, being altogether at variance with your conversation with me two or three hours previous to your note, dated on the [656] evening of 6th, in which, you must recollect, you one moment declared yourself off; and, finally, you went away to have the opinion of Mrs. RoutledgB, about the answer you were to send me. How, therefore, you can, under such circumstances, suffer loss and inconvenience from ray declining to proceed further in the treaty, I am at a loss to imagine; and I was in hopes you would have been satisfied with what I had stated in reply to yonr first note, to have had the liberality of letting the matter drop. But if that should not be your intention, I have only too add, that you may proceed with your claim for ' loss and inconvenience' as you may thiiik most advisable.- I am, &c. " alex. grant. " Mr. Thomas Routledge." The Plaintiff after this surrendered the existing lease to his landlord, and obtained from him a new one, dated 21st April 1825, from the 25th December 1824, for thirty-two years, for the same clear yearly rent of 2501., payable quarterly; in which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archbold v Lord Howth
...; Boutledge v. Grant (7). Even if they (1) 7 H. & N. 172. (5) 3 Q. B. 58 and 1010. (2) 6 M. & W. 358. (6) 3 Mer. 454. (3) 1 Salk. 289. (7) 4 Bing. 653. (4) 1 Camp. 124. THE IRISH REPORTS. be consistent, the agreement of the 30th November cannot be incorporated with the circular of the 25th,......
-
Chinnock v The Marchioness of Ely
...but, if it cannot be given to me sooner than the last day of the month, I shall be willing to take it then." In Routledge v. Grant (4 Bing. 653) the words used were " possession to be given on or before 25th July; " to which the reply made (after accepting the other terms of the offer) was ......
-
Abdul Aziz v Republic Bank (Barbados) Ltd
...it is a well-established principle of law that an offeror may withdraw his offer at any time prior to its acceptance: Routledge v Grant (1828) 172 ER 415. Counsel therefore submitted that when the Defendant sought to withdraw its offer in the April 29, 2020 letter, it was in fact breaching ......
-
Marplan Private Limited v Raffles Gymnastics Academy (S) Pte Ltd
...offeror has offered to keep the offer open for a specified time as such a promise is not supported by consideration – Routledge v Grant (1828) 4 Bing 653. Indeed, it was the Plaintiff’s case that the earlier invoices were withdrawn by the Plaintiff prior to acceptance of the offers containe......